Summary Of Discussions - Métis Breakout Session

In summarizing the breakout group discussions it is important to remember that each breakout group was facilitated in a style that would respond to the group’s expectations and ideas. For example, in the First Nations breakout room the session began with an opportunity for participants to share their key messages with one another. This practice was not necessarily done in the Inuit or Métis breakout groups in the same order or approach. Therefore, while reading the report there will be some differences in the report headings and titles. Also the language used in many of the bullet summaries was not altered or changed in order to respect the statements as recorded on the flip charts. However, if context was required to clarify meaning or interpretation some contextualising was done.

It is important to note that the following pages offer an overview of some of the discussions from the Métis breakout session. These excerpts are not prioritized in any way, nor do the comments purport to represent a summary of the discussions. To fully appreciate the two days of discussions, it is critical to read the full report containing the verbatim transcribed flip charts from the session.

Housing Supply

Launch Question:

How can the factors affecting the current supply of housing be addressed in ways that increase availability for Aboriginal peoples in their diverse circumstances?

Participants identified a number of solutions dealing with housing building standards, suggestions outlining innovative housing approaches for the urban Aboriginal population and policies that will support Métis control on housing issues.

Critical issues

• number of units, existing urban native stock, specific Métis allocation, equitable share (to Inuit and First Nations);
• sustainability;
• construction, diversity in the models made;
• homelessness;
• infrastructure, environmental concerns, water quality;
• land to build on;
• financing, expiry of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation agreements; and
• overcrowding.

Additional Question

What recommended actions do you have to address the critical issues identified?If these recommended actions get interpreted, how will we know progress is being made?

• analysis/better quality of information for housing;
• evaluation process required for housing quality;
• federal government needs to create urban/rural Aboriginal “status blind” f ^{[ 3 ]}und/programs for housing;
• CMHC provincial/federal ratios should be 25% to 75%;
• need rural housing allocations;
• need urban Aboriginal housing-specific allocation;
• expanded urban housing policy, continuum for homelessness;
• urban Aboriginal groups need equal access to homeless funds for programs;
• administrative capacity for persons with disabilities;
• new approaches for housing (e.g. co-op, neighbourhood project; women’s initiatives, Aboriginal housing foundation);
• inner city/core should be a priority; safety, transitional housing for homeless;
• looking at different housing models (e.g. both single family and apartments, special needs, disabled and seniors);
• plan for population increases;
• direct involvement of Métis in policy development;
• direct transfer of funds to Métis organizations to manage and deliver housing programs;
• subsidies must be maintained for existing portfolios where subsidy agreements are ending (sustainability);
• shortened waiting lists;
• longer life of housing units (better housing standards);
• more access to home ownership (e.g. innovative financing);
• home ownership options including rent to own, shorter amortization periods;
• inclusion of insurance in home payments;
• community should determine appropriate home payments that are reasonable; and
• province responsible for supplying quality land serviced with proper infrastructure (e.g. water, sewage, power, drainable, road access, garbage/waste, sub-division for new housing stock); also municipal responsibility as appropriate.

Housing Quality

Launch Question:

What strategic approaches can be pursued to reduce deficiencies and improve the quality of housing available to Aboriginal people?

Participants suggested the following approaches that would support more purchasing power for Métis, greater capacity building for tenants and homeowners for ownership pride, ability to involve the community in the construction, and better land and building infrastructure:

• financial, capital, operating, on par with non-Aboriginal/Métis;
• allocate part of Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) budget for maintenance and improvement before they come off subsidy, increase RRAP budget, create Métis RRAP;
• purchasing power (collectives), deep subsidies for suitable housing;
• Métis and Aboriginal people want input into policies, construction standards, safety standards, etc.;
• use community members to build housing;
• Métis and Aboriginal groups want operating authority;
• tenant relations officers to address client specific issues/social problem;
• Métis and Aboriginal people want assurance that good environment/land practices are followed when housing is built and situated in all areas;
• more training programs (apprenticeship program) to allow Métis people to build units;
• renovation and maintenance, training, education and replacement reserves;
• basic training for renters, such as how to use simple tools; success is measured in user satisfaction; homes are better maintained; renter/community provide longer life cycle of units;
• require infrastructure for sewage disposal;
• require garbage disposal site properly developed;
• require access to municipal waterways;
• use maintenance-free materials (e.g. mould resistant, durable);
• the price of land has an impact on securing good land for Métis housing;
• the cost of servicing the land can be a barrier to maintaining quality;
• housing programs and services must look at the unique circumstances of urban housing perspective;
• restricted to buy/develop houses in modest housing areas that are more likely to have social problems;
• Aboriginal people must be in control of housing criteria;
• inner city areas have a higher level of renting versus ownership, higher levels of unemployment, a greater number of run-down properties and a larger number of people on welfare; and
• municipalities in Western Canada have Aboriginal neighbourhoods that are marginalized and not necessarily safe environments.

Housing Affordability

Launch Question:

What are the key issues that affect housing affordability and what systemic adjustments and supports are required to enable access by Aboriginal peoples to affordable homes?

The following questions were also posted in the room to help participants address housing affordability:

How can we design successful partnership arrangements, and with whom?How can home ownership be made more affordable for Métis people?How do we ensure that affordable rental housing exists for Métis people?What innovative financing mechanisms can be used to improve the affordability of existing housing?How can viable housing markets be created in small and/or remote communities?How do we define affordability as it relates to Métis housing?

Critical issues on affordability

• costs of labour and materials;
• cost of operation, maintenance and utilities;
• geographic distance;
• access to capital;
• home ownership options; and
• health and safety.

Recommendations

Participants recommend innovative models for home building and purchasing. More effort is needed in making creative financial options in building capital, home ownership and maintenance for Aboriginal and Métis people a reality. Additional recommended actions included:

• new housing;
• use of Crown land to reduce initial costs; portable tax credit;
• existing housing must have access to affordable maintenance;
• lower-cost housing may be a longer operating expense;
• value of homes and mortgage must reflect market, may need a bigger grant;
• innovative home ownership programs, such as subsidy and rent-to-own;
• government needs to provide sufficient subsidies and must address high cost of utilities;
• in Quebec, the requirement for a labour card could be eliminated;
• encourage private sector to donate materials, etc., by offering tax-break incentives;
• create foundations to help finance individuals, such as single parents with poor credit rating or low income who do not qualify for a traditional bank mortgage;
• innovative ways to finance initial construction costs;
• need authority to determine when a house is no longer economical or viable due to ongoing maintenance;
• use of local materials;
• partnership and bulk buying;
• can’t sacrifice quality, must build to standard code;
• investment in quality, maintenance-free materials, innovative designs would reduce future repair and rehabilitation costs;
• Habitat for Humanity approach;
• provide incentives to encourage housing providers to provide home ownership programs;
• passive natural resources could identify potential energy efficiencies;
• return to lease-to-purchase agreements;
• social assistance should reflect actual housing cost, not a portion thereof;
• negotiate lower property tax on subsidized housing;
• government could address eliminating provincial sales tax for housing providers/non-profits;
• provinces should be responsible for servicing lots;
• cut levels of administration;
• use Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement (AHRDA) funds to train trades people to construct homes and generate skills;
• recognize lower income level of persons with disabilities, single women;
• address unique needs for women (e.g. maintenance training);
• existing delivery programs to provide supportive property management services, especially for single parent households, people with disabilities and seniors;
• funding the development of a Métis housing policy now (technical level);
• best buy practices;
• research and expand capacity of groups such as Frontiers Foundation; and
• embrace technology (e.g. new and more efficient furnaces and geo-thermal heating).

Jurisdiction, Control and Governance

Launch Question:

What collaborative approaches are needed to address the jurisdictional issues that impact on the ability of Aboriginal peoples to exercise control and governance over how their housing needs are met?

Participants recommended a transfer of jurisdiction, control and governance from all levels of government to Métis governments.

Jurisdiction

• transfer dollars and authority to Métis regions/organizations;
• option 2, transfer dollars and authority to Métis/status blind housing service provider;
• provincial bodies, housing authorities, cut provinces out as middle man;
• provincial allocations to existing delivery organizations including urban native organizations and land-based Métis organizations;
• decisions to allocate made by Métis at provincial housing authority level;
• allocations to be made on an equitable basis by other organizations not covered by national Métis organizations;
• both options based on Métis-specific national housing policy;
• Métis peoples under section 35.1 of the Constitution Act 1982 are distinct Aboriginal people;
• initial Métis National Council (MNC) role; other options, add all five organizations;
• housing policy must recognize status blind organizations in urban situations and be equitable;
• option 1 - all five national Aboriginal groups should have full control of all resources;
• option 2 - money should flow directly to status blind service providers;
• option 3 - see envelope approach (in complete transcribed flip charts);
• jurisdiction for housing belongs to the federal level and flowing down to the federal Métis level and then provincial levels;
• to be nation specific, with mechanisms in place to collaborate;
• political bodies to listen to service providers;
• jurisdiction is based on nation-to-nation negotiations based on self-government models;
• jurisdiction should be based on national Métis strategy that recognizes the right to make decisions on delivery, policy and implementation, evaluations;
• government to Métis government housing to service providers. Relationship is necessary;
• jurisdiction should be carried out in an open and transparent process using plain language and seek to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people; and
• results-based accountability; federal government does not micromanage.

Control

• option 1, status blind;
• federal direct relationship with organizations, housing service providers, Métis, status blind;
• option 2, federal/provincial/municipal/Métis protocol of understanding, organizations;
• when there are tripartite negotiations, create an agreement that reduces bureaucracy and costs go directly to services;
• structured options can be used for different issues;
• problem with tripartite agreements – government change follow though is not guaranteed;
• specific to province or municipality, control mechanism has to adapt to geographic area, develop Métis specific control;
• develop protocols in consultation with women and people with disabilities;
• jurisdiction framework has to protect and build on what is already there;
• control of the programs belong in Métis organization (cut provinces out);
• starting point, transfer agreement of funds;
• when authority is transferred adequate resources must accompany it;
• national standards;
• control over standards, inspections, evaluation, design of house;
• transparent and open process;
• different ways to decide on budgets (e.g. coalition status blind at community level, “standing apart to work together”);
• each municipality create own infrastructure; and
• political groups involved at the lobbying/advocacy level, high level, political level.

Governance

• clarity of role of Interlocutor and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on housing;
• need to have one point of contact (one department) federally (housing for all issues);
• request for a Métis secretariat within federal government;
• need to use current representative and elected bodies for governance;
• representative Métis bodies;
• must be accountable to the people;
• do not want to see a pan-Aboriginal approach such as Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) in urban areas;
• Métis specific not pan-Aboriginal;
• status blind does not equate with pan-Aboriginal;
• status blind respects the different culture;
• ensure both a women’s and disabled person’s voice is built into the governance bodies;
• protocol with the five national Aboriginal organizations (ensure inclusion of women and disability and senior issues), build time frames into protocol;
• Métis-specific women’s organizations can play a role in delivery of specific programs addressing women’s housing/shelter issues (capacity issues will need to be addressed) in all areas (e.g. disabled);
• governance of the Aboriginal housing strategy should follow on protocol and agreements reached by federal/provincial/territorial/Aboriginal;
• transparent and open process for clarity of understanding;
• adequate and equitable funding needed to enable full participation in reaching agreement;
• renew and establish agreements with existing housing service providers;
• multi-year housing policy and strategy;
• all parties work toward efficiency and effectiveness to meet the crises in Aboriginal housing;
• government must proceed with action and not be stalled by differing views of stakeholder groups or use it as an excuse for inaction; and
• governance should be based on a results-based management approach.

Making Progress

Launch Question:

How will we know we have achieved success?

Participants recommended accountability in government reporting on improvements. Not clear through statistical information and movement to devolve housing to the Métis.

• reduced waiting lists;
• federal government to report annually on progress on needs data;
• Statistics Canada indicators will show improvement in next census;
• also measure progress on improvement for persons with disabilities and women;
• federal government to report on status of recommendations and actions from these sessions (annually);
• measurable increase in the number of new social housing (Métis) units;
• federal government to do research on finance options from other sources (e.g. shelter allowance);
• budget to be targeted specifically to off-reserve Aboriginals, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be directly involved rather then going through third party such as provinces, municipalities;
• in Québec, municipalities must participate (15%) if do not want/have no housing development;
• municipal governments must provide tax breaks, incentives to build (this must be federal mandate and their responsibility to enforce);
• Urban Aboriginal Homelessness/Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAH/UAS) – align funding and control to Aboriginal (Métis) community;
• there must be (Métis) equitable share of any new resources allocated to housing;
• sell old stock (single dwellings) to create new resources for purchase of housing options such as apartments/suites that house more for less;
• land trusts can reduce building costs; and
• funding budgets must represent true regional costs.

3. status blind is a term that means an agency/organization will service all Aboriginal people, First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

Table of Contents

The documentation contained on this website does not necessarily represent the views of any government or National Aboriginal Organization. The purpose of this website is to share information related to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable: background papers, Facilitator's sectoral and final reports, agendas and media announcements.

Top of page